G.R. No.

172671

April 16, 2009

MARISSA
vs.
ANTONIO J.P. LOZADA,
CITY, Respondents.

R.
ANITA LOZADA and

UNCHUAN, Petitioner,
THE

REGISTER

OF

DEEDS

OF

CEBU

Nature: Petition for Review of Resolution of CA, dated 12 April 2006. Resolution
affirmed the Modification Order of RTC, Cebu, Branch 10
FACTS:
Sisters Anita Lozada Slaughter and Peregrina Lozada Saribay were the
registered co-owners of Lot Nos. 898-A-3 and 898-A-4 in Cebu. They are based in
the US.
The parcels of land were sold to their nephew Antonio Lozada under a Deed
of Sale dated 11 March 1994.
With an SPA from Anita, Peregrina went to the house of their brother Dr.
Antonio Lozada in Long Beach, California. Dr. Lozada agreed to advance the
purchase price of $367,000 or P10,000,000.00 for Antonio, his nephew. Then said
necessary documents were forwarded by Dr. Lozada to Antonio in the Philippines.
Upon receipt, latter sought the registration of the same in the Registry of Deeds in
Cebu. (effect: TCT 128322 and 128323 under name of Antonio Lozada)
Pending the registration, petitioner Marissa Unchuan caused an annotation
of an adverse claim on the lots. Petitioner claims that Anita donated an
undivided share in the lots to her under an unregistered deed of Donation in 1987.
In this instance, Antonio and Anita brought a case against Petitioner for
quieting of title with the application for Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order.
Petitioner in turn, filed an action to declare the deed of sale void and to
cancel TCTs issued in favor of Antonio.
TRIAL:
>Respondents showed a video of Anita denying having donated the
parcels of land in favor of petitioner. Dr. Lozada testified that he agreed to advance
payment for Antonio in preparation for their plan to form a corporation.
>Petitioner during the trial testified that she accompanied Anita to the office
of Atty. Cresencio Tomakin for the signing of the Deed of Donation which she kept in
a safety deposit box but continued to funnel monthly rentals to Peregrinas account.
Dr. Fuentes, witness of the petitioner stated that it was impossible for Peregrina to
sign the Deed of sale as she was suffering from Edema.
RTC: Antonio Lozada declared absolute owner. Deed of Donation is null and void.

The action brought by petitioner to declare the deed of sale was also
dismissed.
MR: denied. But modified the damages awarded and litigation expenses. (made
lower)
CA: affirmed with modification by restoring the award for damages and litigation
expenses.
SC:

Antonio Lozada is the absolute owner.

Basis: the CA reiterates the rule that a notarized and authenticated deed of
sale enjoys the presumption of regularity and is admissible without further proof of
due execution. In this regard, it declared Antonio a buyer in good faith and for value.
It was not in violation of public policy prohibiting aliens owning lands in the
Philippines. Dr. Lozada never sought the registration of the title under his name and
what transpired was merely just to advance payment.
ISSUE:
and void

WON the deed of donation of an immovable property in this case a null

HELD:

yes

RATIONALE: the CA reiterates the rule that a notarized and authenticated deed of
sale enjoys the presumption of regularity and is admissible without further proof of
due execution. In this regard, it declared Antonio a buyer in good faith and for value.

The provision of Article 749 of the Civil Code is in point:

Art. 749. In order that the donation of an immovable may be valid, it must be made
in a public document, specifying therein the property donated and the value of the
charges which the donee must satisfy.

The acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a separate public
document, but it shall not take effect unless it is done during the lifetime of the
donor.

If the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall be notified

thereof in an authentic form, and this step shall be noted in both instruments.

>When the law requires that a contract be in some form in order that it may be
valid or enforceable or that a contract be proved in a certain way, that requirement
is absolute and indispensable. Here, the Deed of Donation does not appear to be
duly notarized. In page three of the deed, the stamped name of Cresencio Tomakin
appears above the words Notary Public until December 31, 1983 but below it were
the typewritten words Notary Public until December 31, 1987. A closer examination
of the document further reveals that the number 7 in 1987 and Series of 1987 were
merely superimposed.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision dated

February 23, 2006, and Resolution dated April 12, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV. No. 73829 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The awards of moral
damages and exemplary damages in favor of respondents are deleted. No
pronouncement as to costs.

JAMES ESTRELLER, EDUARDO

CULIANAN, GREG CARROS,
RAQUEL YEE, JOSELITO
PENILLA, LORNA DOTE,
CRESENCIANA CLEOPAS,
TRINIDAD TEVES, SONIA
PENILLA, ANITA GOMINTONG,
CHING DIONESIO, MARIBEL
MANALO, DESIRES HUERTO,
and RAYMUNDO CORTES,
Petitioners,
- versus LUIS MIGUEL YSMAEL and

G.R. No. 170264

Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
NACHURA, and
PERALTA, JJ.

CRISTETA L. SANTOS-ALVAREZ,
FACTS: a case for recovery of possession against petitioners claiming ownership of
the property subject of dispute located in E. Rod and La Filonila Streets in QC.
Respondents alleged that petitioners entered through the property with stealth and
strategy and had since occupied the same; and despite demands, petitioners refuse
to vacate the same.
Petitioners denied these allegations. According to the respondent one Luis
Miguel Ysmael had no personality to file the suit since he only owned a small portion
of the property, while respondent Cristeta Santo-Alvarez did not appear to be a
registered owner thereof. Petitioners also contended that their occupation of the
property was lawful, having leased the same from the Magdalena Estate and later
on from Christeta. Lastly, Petitioners claim that the property has already been
proclaimed by the QC local government as an Area of Priority Development under
PD 1517 and 2016, which prohibits the eviction of lawful tenants and demolition of
their homes.
RTC: in favor of respondents. They are ordered to vacate the property.
CA: RTC decision affirmed in TOTO
ISSUE: WON the court of appeals was correct in giving credence that Ysmael who
owns a small portion of the property has personality to file the suit on behalf of the
other registered owners.
WON there was any transfer of ownership of said lot to Alvarez.
WON PD 1517 AND 2016 is applicable in this case.
HELD: yes.
No.
No
RATIONALE: 1. respondents are real parties-in-interest in the suit below and may,
therefore, commence the complaint for accion publiciana one for recovery of
the right to possess. Ysmael is a co-owner of the subject property together with
Julian Felipe Ysmael, Teresa Ysmael and Ramon Ysmael. in WEE VS DE CASTRO ,
art. 487 of the New Civil Code, reasserted the rule that any one of the co-owners
may bring any kind of action for the recovery of co-owned properties since the suit
is presumed to have been filed for the benefit of all co-owners. The court also
stressed that 487 covers all kinds of action for the recovery of possession
(interdictal forcible entry and unlawful detainer), recovery of possession (accion
publiciana) and recovery of ownership (reinvidicacion).
2. Petitioners persistently question the validity of the transfer of ownership to
Alvarez. They insist that Alvarez failed to establish any right over the property since the
Deed of Absolute Sale was not inscribed on TCT No. 41698. Interestingly, petitioners
debunked their own argument when they themselves claimed in their Answer with Counter-

claim that they derived their right to occupy the property from a lease agreement with, first,
the Magdalena Estate, and thereafter, Alvarez herself.
More importantly, the fact that the sale was not annotated or inscribed on TCT No.
41698 does not make it any less valid. A contract of sale has the force of law between the
contracting parties and they are expected to abide, in good faith, by their respective
contractual commitments. Article 1358 of the Civil Code which requires the embodiment of
certain contracts in a public instrument, is only for convenience; and registration of the
instrument only adversely affects third parties, and non-compliance therewith does not
adversely affect the validity of the contract or the contractual rights and obligations of the
parties thereunder.
3. in the case of DIMACULANGAN V CASALLA, the court ruled that the protective
mantle of PD 1517 and 2016 extends only to landless urban families who meet these
qualifications: a)they are tenants as defined under Sec. 3 of PD 1517,b. they built a home on
the land they are leasing or occupying; c. the land they are leasing or occupying is within an
Area for Priority Development and Urban Land Reform Zone; d. they have resided on the
land continuously for the last 10 years or more.
Tenant is defined as the rightful occupant of the land and its structures, but does ot
include those whose presence on th eland is merely tolerated and without the benefit of a
contract, those who enter the land by force or deceit or those whose possession is under
litigation. Those whose occupancy is devoid of any legal authority, or those whose contracts
of lease were already terminated or had already expired, or whose possession is under
litigation are not considered a tenant. While petitioners claim that they are lawful lessees of
the property. However they failed to prove any lease relationship or at least, show with
whom they entered the lease contract. Respondents were able to prove their right to enjoy
possession of the property.
DISPOSITION: petition denied. CA is affirmed.